In a few hours I’m going to be setting all comments to moderation and I can’t say how frequently I’ll be by to let them out. As I mentioned a while back, I have a lot on my plate right now. I’ve been able to keep an eye on the comments so far and even cranked out several posts, but I need to turn on comment moderation probably for the next few weeks.

I mention this so you can 1) get your comments in now if you have something you want to get in, and 2) so any other bloggers who want to host a discussion have an opportunity to announce this in the comments section of this post before I turn on moderation.

Edit: Just to clarify, this isn’t about me taking a heavy hand with the comments. I might decide to turn the dial a bit more that way in the future, but this is something different. I won’t be able to keep up with the discussion for extended periods of time so I’ll be turning on default moderation. Since I won’t be regularly checking the comment filters I won’t be freeing them up regularly either. This tends to ruin the flow of the discussion, which is why I thought some other bloggers might want to host specific conversations there. While there of course, you will need to follow their rules. Either way, the manosphere must go on, with or without me actively participating for the next few weeks.

Update: Comments are now set to always go to moderation. It may be a while before I can check in and release them.

I think its a good call. There’s much to be said for this site but the comments can go waaaaaaaaaaaaaay wide. This is a general manosphere problem.

It is a matter of picking your poison. I don’t see many sites able to strike a really great balance there. If they are very active at all in culling the comments, they tend to start to see the comments section as reflecting their own beliefs. Then they have to justify why they let through one thing they disagreed with but not something else they might disagree with. It is their choice of course, but ultimately you tend to end up with echo chambers where the quickest to complain throttle everyone else. I present the fine ladies at christianforums.com as exhibit A. They went on for 40+ pages yammering on about how the point of marriage was to make people haaaaapy, and scolding those who look unfavorably on frivolous divorce. This happened because they shut out competing voices. But they can’t shut out other voices on this site, so they are beside themselves. They’ve never had to explain their loony positions in the face of true criticism. They are the victims of their own intellectual intolerance.

As Exhibit B I would offer the Darwii. You made a polite scripture based argument for men not marrying promiscuous women. They came unglued, and banned you and locked the thread.

Dalrock to GKChesterton:As Exhibit B I would offer the Darwii. You made a polite scripture based argument for men not marrying promiscuous women. They came unglued, and banned you and locked the thread.

Permit me to point out that the treatment of GKChesterton by the “Darwii” was quite shabby.

Permit me also to point out that such treatment is all too common among the various forms of “traditionalist”, “conservative”, etc. thought. Suggesting that women should take responsibility for their actions, or that some women can render themselves pretty much unfit for marriage is all too often met with that kind of reaction. And as for suggesting that some women’s behavior is simply bad, and deserves criticism, or a strong rebuke, or even punishment…forget it.

Take your experience with the DarwinCatholic blog. Multiply it by 10, 20, 100. Then ask yourself, “Self, if I’d gone through that kind of nonsense a bunch of times, what would my opinion of traditionalist conservatives likely be?”.

Be careful with this kind of introspection, though. I’ll let Johnny explain it to you.

So I didn’t expect much different from Darwin because of his background. But he has engaged me privately in email and that’s going along fine (I should also note to Dalrock that I don’t use my real email here…if I ever decide to become a family law judge which is a real possibility I have no need of being tracked to the manosphere…).

I would go so far as to say that he’s not opposed to the ideas but is opposed to the rhetoric. This is part of the feminization of debate and in time I think he’ll realize the problem over time. And yes, I’ve gone through it bunches of times and come out on the end. Part of the problem with blogs is there is no secondary emotional investment. When you have these discussions with people _you know_ it becomes much more difficult to just blow you off. For all Darwin knows I really live in my basement and eat live rats. And some comments of the RXMD variety don’t exactly encourage the opposite conclusion.

Also, I agree with Dalrock’s about the echo chamber. However, sometimes you have to be clear that you don’t agree with one side of the conversation lest, by being the host, you get accused of so agreeing.

Greetings from Finland,
slightly off-topic, but would be interesting to hear your comments:
Of the about 21 000 employees of the Church in Finland , 71 % are female, as researched in 2010.
In the children/youth-field, 2695 workers of which 39 were men ( not % ! ).
Do you get any prediction of the future from this?

If your back to Blogging (you had me worried there..), I got home to turn on the local news just in time to here a report about a study co-authored by a professor at the University of Denver Galena Rhoades which indicates that
Nearly 40% of women today have never been married, and that “”that more people are cohabiting”.

The local TV news report was little more than showing a number of young women enthusiastically agreeing that there was no rush to marry in their minds (gonna leave it till they’re in their 30’s, I suppose), and a quick interview with Dr. Rhoades. It was all fem-posi spin, with little more than superficial analysis of why women would want to wait. From a “Red Pill” perspective, it was sadly humerous exercise in solipsism.

But, the note of more people choosing to co-habitate for longer periods of time (before marriage, or so it was suggested), did get me to thinking. Although it runs counter to Christian morals, perhaps co-habitation before marriage has become a safer approach for young men. It gives them a chance to get to really know what a woman is like in a domestic situation, and a woman who isn’t pushy about getting married would seem to be a woman who doesn’t have an “agenda” (marry, kids, divorce-retirement; for example).

This longitudinal study followed 120 cohabiting, opposite-sex couples over 8 months to test hypotheses derived from commitment theory about how two types of commitment (dedication and constraint) operate during cohabitation. In nearly half the couples, there were large differences between partners in terms of dedication. These differences were associated with lower relationship adjustment, even controlling for overall level of dedication. Furthermore, among couples who believed in the institution of marriage, cohabiting women were, on average, more dedicated than their partners. Additionally, there was evidence that constraints (e.g., signing a lease, having a joint bank account) make it less likely that couples think they will break up, regardless of relationship dedication. This finding was strongest for women and for those with higher income

I’m new to your site and the manosphere in general. I started with solvemygirlproblems.com, then read all of Roissy and Rollo Tomassi. I like your site and stance on game mixed with more conservative ideas. You seem pretty level-headed. I’m aware of Roissy’s 12 commandments of poon and that often a woman complaining about not getting enough attention or feeling loved is really suffering a lack of attraction rather than rapport. However, basic instincts often tell me that rather than “weather her storm” when my girlfriend is implying that I don’t care about her, when I actually do, that is a time to actually get angry. Fucking angry! You know, get dragged into the fight. Someone who’s actually invested in another human being resents being told otherwise, right? I don’t know if you take requests on article topics, but as an inexperienced 26 year old male loner, I think time’s running out and I don’t even know how to express myself or ANY emotion and think I’m afraid of having ties to anyone. I have to know how to handle these things. I read a (long) article (by a woman) on how to argue with your girlfriend. Here’s a link to page two of the article:

LOL about calling Roissy a “pussycat” compared to Dalrock. It shows you how women have differing moral standards for “alphas” and “betas.”

Very possibly so. Or it could show that the woman in question feels she can dismiss a player like Roissy but is threatened by a married man with children challenging her with facts and logic. Perhaps logic is misogyny…maybe facts as well?

“Or it could show that the woman in question feels she can dismiss a player like Roissy but is threatened by a married man with children challenging her with facts and logic. ”

Yes, they don’t like morality being put in terms they can’t abuse and in logical form they can’t evade. However, what strikes me is that someone like Roissy is encouraging behavior that causes much more harm to young women than Dalrock, but Roissy is considered a “pussycat.” It’s been said a million times, but so much of this paranoia that women manifest about men is really just the expression of their base and amoral sexuality dominating their thinking.

The irony is that moralizing men will no longer be treated as threats to women when the moralizing men have the power to enforce what they want.